News reports in the past few months have shown forces loyal to the Assad regime using tanks, APC’s, and artillery as tools to suppress dissent.  Mixed up in the fighting between government troops and opposition fighters are the normal group of non-combatants.  No-one should be surprised that a tyrant like Assad has no qualms about erasing entire city blocks to destroy opposition, no matter the collateral damage to civilians.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has suggested that leaders of the Syrian government and military should be referred to the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity. 

I’m sure the threat of being drug into a courtroom at the Hague is making Assad consider pulling back his T-72’s and unloading his BM-21’s.  He must be up to all hours of the night staring off into the distance in fear over the possibility that he might have to get a lawyer.

The war crimes trials in Nuremberg and elsewhere after World War II set a precedent that those who do not follow the law of war when dealing with civilians and non-combatants can expect punishment after the war is over.  The hope seemed to be that the example of watching war criminals go to prison or the gallows would encourage future combatants to make sure they don’t slaughter civilians or be overly harsh to POW’s.

So, how’s that worked for us?

In my lifetime alone, we’ve seen mass extermination of civilians in Cambodia, man-made mass starvation in Africa and North Korea, the use of chemical weapons against civilians in Iraq, the massacre of combatants and non-combatants during uprisings in Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, and other Mid-East countries, use of rape and concentration camps to ethnically cleanse civilian populations in the Balkans, and the slaughter of thousands of peaceful protesters in China.

Does anyone actually think that the possibility of being drug into court even occurred to the politicians and soldiers who carried out these attrocities?  I doubt it.

What went through their minds was probably something along the lines of “These people are an obstacle to me.  I need them to stop being an obstacle.  What is the easiest way for me to remove that obstacle?”.  They didn’t consider the humanity or value of the people they were hurting.  They sometimes tried to cover up their crimes, but that was done more to avoid publicity, not prosecution.

So what deters criminals?  In my humble opinion, the only thing that successfully convinces people who want to rape and pillage their way to power or to keep power is force. Naked, brutal, swift, and accurate application of massive force administered in the most public and sticky way available.

We kept Saddam Hussein from bombing Kurds and Shiite Arab civilians by flying CAP over his country for a decade.  We stopped the war in the Balkans by putting tanks and soldiers between the combatants and promising to kick the first bastard who raised a hand directly in the teeth.  When we sat on the sidelines and moaned about the injustice of it all, millions of people in North Korea starved to death because their political masters refuse to change their methods and Tiananmin Square got depopulated with tanks and machine guns.

Yes, dictators who kill their own people can end up in court, either at the hands of their own people like Hussein or at the Hague like Milosevic, but that happened years after the crimes. People like that really don’t care about what happens in a decade.  They concentrate on keeping power until next year, and they’re willing to do what’s necessary, no matter the cost, to keep it.

If you want to either prevent or stop the unjust killing of civilians and other non-combatants, you have to apply force, and be willing to keep applying it until the offender stops and gives up the means to start back up.

The same is true for any criminal.  When was the last time you heard about someone saying “I stopped robbing liquor stores because I was worried about going back to prison?” or “I was going to break into that house and rape the woman who lives there, but that’s a long stretch in the big house, and I don’t want to do that.”?

No, you don’t.    What you hear is “I don’t go to Virginia to rob people, they have guns.”, or “I saw the group of guys coming at me, so I put my hand on my gun and made eye contact with them and they changed direction and left.”.

Thugs, either those in charge of armies or those walking our streets, don’t respect or fear being brought into court.  Thugs respect and fear force, and if you want to make them stop, you have to be willing to apply it.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as `Firearms Owners Freedom Act’.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

The Congress finds the following:

(1)  The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees and protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for all citizens of the United States. 

(2).  The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Section 1, guarantees and protects equal treatment under the law for all citizens of the United States.

(3). Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution grants the power to regulate interstate commerce and collect taxes to the Federal government.

(4).  The National Firearms Act of 1934 and the codes and regulations enacted to fulfill it currently contain an unreasonable restriction on firearms accessories that suppress the noise of the firearm discharging.

(5).  The Gun Control Act of 1968 and the codes and regulations enacted to fulfill it contain unreasonable restrictions on the lawful and constitutional interstate commerce of firearms.

(6).  Several states, territories, and the District of Columbia impose onerous restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms by requiring a license to own a firearm but still receive funds paid as excise taxes by citizens when purchasing firearms and ammunition.

No funds collected as excise taxes on the manufacture or sales of firearms, ammunition, or firearms accessories shall be dispersed to states, territories, or districts that require a license in any form to keep and bear arms.  The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the Treasury shall jointly determine on a quarterly basis which, if any, of the states, territories, or districts of the United States shall have their share of excise taxes withheld.  Any withheld funds shall be held by the government of the United States until such time as the effected state, territory, or district shall drop such firearms licensing requirements.

Y’all, that’s just 477 words that would restore a lot of our gun rights.  There would be some proforma stuff added to the top and bottom, and I’m sure it would be cut up, thoroughly blended, and have amendments added to it before it got out of Congress, but if the core survived, I’d be a much happier gun owner.

First, Congress declares publicly and no uncertain terms that the legislative branch agrees with the judicial branch that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Next, it removes the part of NFA ’34 that makes putting a muffler on the end of your gun barrel something that requires paperwork, months of waiting, and a yearly tax.

Then it makes it possible again to buy and sell firearms across state lines.  That does two things:  First, you can buy a handgun while you’re in another state and not have to go through the hassle of finding an FFL on both end of the transaction to ship it home.  Next, if city or state makes it difficult to have a gun by making it exceedingly difficult to be an FFL, you can cross state lines to buy a gun.

Finally, while not telling states that they have to drop licensing requirements to own a gun, which would violate the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, the act tells those states that as long as they require a license to exercise a right, they won’t be getting the money from the excise taxes on firearms and ammunition.  Want the money from firearms owners to pay for your parks and such?  Then treat firearms owners as first class citizens and adults.

What do y’all think?